Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer	Wim Van Bortel
Do you understand and agree to our policy of having open and named reviews, and having your review included with the published papers. (If no, please inform the editor that you cannot review this manuscript.)	Yes
Is the language of sufficient quality?	No
Please add additional comments on language quality to clarify if needed	The authors should carefully check spelling errors
Are all data available and do they match the descriptions in the paper?	Yes
Additional Comments
Are the data and metadata consistent with relevant minimum information or reporting standards? See GigaDB checklists for examples <a href="http://gigadb.org/site/guide" target="_blank">http://gigadb.org/site/guide</a>	Yes
Additional Comments
Is the data acquisition clear, complete and methodologically sound?	Yes
Additional Comments	see some additional comments in my review regarding the description of what actually is part of the Bonne-Wepster collection
Is there sufficient detail in the methods and data-processing steps to allow reproduction?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is there sufficient data validation and statistical analyses of data quality?	Yes
Additional Comments	not relevant for this paper
Is the validation suitable for this type of data?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is there sufficient information for others to reuse this dataset or integrate it with other data?	No
Additional Comments	I agree with the proposed possible re-use of the data. Yet, as the original taxonomic nomenclature is kept (which is very good). yet, the old taxonomic names should be ‘translated’ to the current taxonomy of the data is used a a current analysis. It would be good to state that explicitly and warn possible users of this dataset, or to provide the current taxonomic nomenclature in an additional field of the digitized database
Any Additional Overall Comments to the Author	This data paper describes the digitizing of the Culicidae collection of Bonne-Wepster. This is an important work to make ‘old’ data available for current research. As the original taxonomic nomenclature is kept in the digitized database, the old taxonomic names should be ‘translated’ to the current taxonomy to make them useful for current and future scientific analysis. It would be good to state that explicitly and warn possible users of this dataset or to provide in the database the current taxonomic nomenclature in an additional field. Please find some more detailed comments below. Data description - It would be good to indicate when the mosquitoes were actually collected (e.g. after lines 33-34, and after lines 35-36). - Line 38. When was the mosquito collection transferred to the Natural History Museum of Naturalis (NBC), in Leiden, The Netherlands? - Lines 52-54. It is not clear whether the 1216 mosquitoes of the former Zoologische Museum Amsterdam Nederland (ZMAN) collection, belong to the Joahnna Bonne-Wepster collection; or is this a side project of the actual main project “Digitizing the Culicidae collection of Bonne-Wepster”. Please clarify this. Context - Lines 63-64. Change “for conservation purposes and biodiversity analysis” into “ to analyse biodiversity for example for conservation purposes” - Line 69. Change diseases into pathogens. (see also line 95) - Line 70. Please refer the most recent World Malaria Report of 2022. Material and methods - Line 124. What do you mean by “All drawers containing mosquitoes were sampled”. Did you only check a sample of all drawers or did you check and investigate all specimen? From the description (here and at other places in the text) it is not clear what you consider as former Bonne-Wepster collection (see also comment in the data description section). - Lines 139-142. It would be nice to add a figure with the new label that was added. - Lines 143-149. Likewise as (lines 139-142). - Line 156 (data table). Row “Name comments” Write in full “det.” Geographic coverage - Line 206. Why is France between brackets? Re-Use Potential - I agree with the proposed possible re-use of the data. Yet, as the original taxonomic nomenclature is kept, the old taxonomic names should be ‘translated’ to the current taxonomy. It would be good to state that explicitly and warn possible users of this dataset, or to provide the current taxonomic nomenclature in an additional field of the digitized database . Please carefully check the text for spelling errors (e.g., Line 92. Change “Durch” in “Dutch. Line 95. Check the spelling of mosquito and mosquitoes, etc).
Recommendation	Minor Revision